[VOIPSEC] VOIP for free??

Thu Apr 14 09:58:39 CDT 2005

Bob,
Understand your point.
This issue is more than a technology issue, it is an industry issue. We addressed this with Level3 back on 2001 and even went to the point or recommending a IETF working group.

So the question remains do we have all the principals parties do make this happen and will there be sustainable support to delivered demonstrable results?
Best,
-Ed
http://vnap.ws
http://agileco.net
-----Original Message-----
From: "Bob Hunt" <bhunt at ci.olympia.wa.us>
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2005 11:34:34 
To:"Brian Rosen" <br at brianrosen.net>, "Alexander" <aldem-voipsec at aldem.net>,       <voipsec at voipsa.org>
Subject: RE: [VOIPSEC] VOIP for free??

Not even touching on the matter of VoIP phones' portability, and
considering the VoIP phone stays in one place, the emergency call issue
is simply one of public safety.  Even if the VoIP subscriber knows the
phone can't complete 911 calls, what about the babysitter, the relative
that is visiting, the repair person who's hurt them self and others who
may need emergency service?  I suggest that any VoIP service must handle
911 calls - after all, you expect that from a "regular" phone, don't
you?  Anything less appears criminal to me....

Thanks - Bob
"Do not go where the path may lead, go instead where there is no path
and leave a trail." -- Ralph Waldo Emerson 

-----Original Message-----
From: Voipsec-bounces at voipsa.org [mailto:Voipsec-bounces at voipsa.org] On
Behalf Of Brian Rosen
Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2005 5:18 AM
To: 'Alexander'; voipsec at voipsa.org
Subject: RE: [VOIPSEC] VOIP for free??

While I expect that we will see some very "light touch" regulations on
U.S. VoIP service providers, I don't think that we can count on that to
get the kind of service we want.  We have to make it so easy and
inexpensive to handle an emergency call that they all do it because they
have a very small liability if they don't, but the cost of complying is
smaller than the "net present value" of the liability.  If it takes a
couple hundred lines of code, and nothing else but an Internet
connection, I think that would do it. The fundamental problem with
regulation is that you can't regulate non-U.S. suppliers, and yet they
can offer the same services to U.S. customers.

I have reason to believe if we do make it that easy and that
inexpensive, then systems like Skype (your example) would implement what
is necessary. That's the plan.  Of course, Skype has PSTN connections
now.

You are very wrong about devices that look like a phone and don't offer
emergency call services.  There are very few such devices except VoIP
devices that look like phones and don't work for emergency calls today.
Many, many people care, especially the authorities.  Sometimes the
authorities are misled by incorrect assumptions made by service
providers on their costs of complying, or by vested interests whose
business is better served by high costs and low compliance rates.

Let me ask it to you this way:

If it costs a service provider an average of $.0001 per month per
subscriber to support emergency call services, and one person per year
per service provider loses their life because they couldn't get help
from the service, is that a good tradeoff?

Suppose it was $.001 per sub per month?  $.01? $.1? 

Suppose one person sues the service provider because they didn't provide
the service?  Would that be a good tradeoff?

Now, if it costs $1 a month a subscriber to provide the service, and you
have 10M subscribers, then you can decide if its worth it.  Maybe it
would be to you.  Probably not to me, but at least we're in a range
where you can make the argument with a straight face.

I'd like the cost of compliance to be a couple hundred lines of open
source code, and access to a public routing database.

Now, this does NOT include the issue of location determination, which is
a more substantial cost, born by the Access Infrastructure Provider.
That's a bigger deal, and more difficult, and probably subject to more
regulation, and a more level playing field for the regulation (the AIP
is always local).

Brian

-----Original Message-----
From: Voipsec-bounces at voipsa.org [mailto:Voipsec-bounces at voipsa.org] On
Behalf Of Alexander
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2005 7:24 PM
To: voipsec at voipsa.org
Subject: Re: [VOIPSEC] VOIP for free??

On Mon, Apr 11, 2005 at 09:14:50AM -0400, stuart jacobs wrote:

> Unfortunately, in the USA, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
> does care about 911 and mandates support by any supplier of 
> telecommunications services currently over the PSTN but will
eventually 
> apply to non-PSTN Local communications system as well.

  What about closed services like Skype? There might be community with
  computer-only network (i.e. no access to/from PSTN at all) - will this
  be considered as "telecommunication services"? If yes, what about 911
  routing, if there are (say) no phone numbers involved?

  To be honest, I don't really understand why anyone who is offering
voice
  services (whatever it is - VoIP, Skype or like) must provide 911
  routing... No, "looks like phone" is not an argument here - there are
  many devices which looks like phone and are not capable to provide 911
  or equivalent service, and nobody (including authorities) cares.

Regards,
/Al

_______________________________________________
Voipsec mailing list
Voipsec at voipsa.org http://voipsa.org/mailman/listinfo/voipsec_voipsa.org

_______________________________________________
Voipsec mailing list
Voipsec at voipsa.org http://voipsa.org/mailman/listinfo/voipsec_voipsa.org

_______________________________________________
Voipsec mailing list
Voipsec at voipsa.org
http://voipsa.org/mailman/listinfo/voipsec_voipsa.org

Sincerely,
Ed
678.522.8511
Sent wirelessly via BlackBerry